We use cookies to give you the best online experience.

By using our website you

agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more her
e.Close Me
News Alert|My Account
mondaq logo
Ravi Bhateja Prakash (Logoff)
Search for Articles
TOPICS|REGIONS|CONTRIBUTORS|ADVICE CENTRE|OUR SERVICES
Accounting| Finance| Commercial| Anti-trust| Employment| Wealth Mgt| Environment
| Consumer| Insurance| IP| Government| International| More
Home > India > Criminal Law
India: Framing Of Charges: An Overview
Last Updated: 13 August 2013
Article by Sugandha Nayak
Singh & Associates
LinkedIn
Twitter
Faceboo
k
One basic requirement of a fair trial in criminal jurisprudence is to give preci
se information to the accused as to the accusation against him. This is vitally
important to the accused in the preparation of his defence. In all trials under
the Criminal Procedure Code the accused is informed of the accusation in the beg
inning itself. In case of serious offences the Code requires that the accusation
s are to be formulated and reduced to writing with great precision & clarity. Th
is "charge" is then to be read and explained to the accused person1.
Charge serves the purpose of notice or intimation to the accused, drawn up accor
ding to specific language of law, giving clear and unambiguous or precise notice
of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the cour
se of trial2.
Relevant Legal Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Section 211 & Section 212 specifies about Contents of Charge and mentioning of p
articulars as to time and place of the alleged offence in the charge.
This rule is to an extent relaxed in a case of criminal breach of trust or of di
shonest misappropriation. When the accused is charged with criminal breach of tr
ust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall b
e sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movab
le property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, a
nd the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, withou
t specifying particular items or exact dates. It is obvious that the relaxation
given by the above rule is applicable only in case of criminal breach of trust o
r dishonest misappropriation and not in case of any other offence like theft, fa
lsification of accounts under Section 477-A of the IPC, cheating etc.
This rule is intended to cover cases of persons who showed a deficiency in the a
ccounts with which they were entrusted but who could not be shown to have misapp
ropriated this or that specific sum3.
Section 213 talks about; when manner of committing offence must be stated:
When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 2
11 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he
is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner is whi
ch the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.
Section 214 gives a rule for interpreting the words used in the charge: It provi
des that in every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to
have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which

such offence is punishable.

Basic Procedure regarding charge & its trial
The initial requirement of a fair trial in criminal cases is a precise statement
of the accusation. The code seeks to secure this requirement, first, by laying
down in Sections 211 to 214 of CrPC as to what a charge should contain; next, st
ipulating in Section 218 of CrPC that for every distinct offence there should be
a separate charge; and lastly, by laying down in the same section that each cha
rge should be tried separately, so that what is sought to be achieved by the fir
st two rules is not nullified by a joinder of numerous & unconnected charges4.
Section 218 reads as Separate charges for distinct offences
The object of section 218 is to save the accused from being embarrassed in his d
efence if distinct offences are lumped together in one charge or in separate cha
rges & are tried together5. Another reason is that the mind of the court might b
e prejudiced against the prisoner if he were tried in one trial upon different c
harges resting on different evidence. It might be difficult for the court trying
him on one of the charges not to be influenced by the evidence against him on t
he other charges. The strict observance of Section 218(1) may lead to multiplici
ty of trials, therefore exceptions, in suitable cases, have been provided by Sec
tion 218(2) in Sections 219,220,221 & 223. The effects of non-compliance with pr
ovisions regarding charge would be considered later. It would however be useful
to allude to the decision of the Supreme Court in context of non-compliance with
Section 218. In every case, in which a departure from the requirements of Secti
on 218 has occurred, the question before the courts is, whether the omission to
frame the required charge has or has not in fact occasioned a failure of justice
by prejudicing the accused in his defence, & whether he has thus been deprived
of a fair trial6.
Power of Court to order separate trial in cases where joinder of charges or of o
ffenders is permissible
The basic rule regarding charge is that for every distinct offence there shall b
e a separate charge & for every such charge there shall be separate trial. The o
nly exceptions recognized are contained in Sections 219,220,221 & 223 of CrPC. T
herefore separate trial is the rule and the joint trial is an exception. The sec
tions containing the exceptions are only enabling provisions. A court has got th
e discretion to order a separate trial even though the case is covered by one of
the exceptions enabling a joint trial7. A joint trial of a very large number of
charges is very much to be deprecated even though it is not prohibited by law.
A separate trial is always desirable whenever there is risk of prejudice to the
accused in a joint trial. The Supreme Court has taken the view that it is the op
tion of the court whether to resort to Section 219,220 & 223 of the Code or whet
her to act as laid down in Section 218 and that the accused has no right to clai
m joinder of charges or of offenders8.
Applicability of provisions relating to joinder of charges to cases where no cha
rge is framed
As will be seen later, in all summons cases though it is necessary to state to t
he accused the particulars of the offence of which he is charged, it is not nece
ssary to frame a formal charge. In such cases a question may arise whether the p
rovisions relating to joinder of charges & of offenders are applicable to such p
roceedings. The Code does not make any express provision in this regard. However
the courts have taken the view that these provisions are equally applicable in
summons cases also9.
Amendment/Alteration of charge

According to Section 216 (1) of CrPC, any court may alter or add to any charge a
t any time before judgment is pronounced. The section invests a comprehensive po
wer to remedy the defects in the framing or non-framing of a charge, whether dis
covered at the initial stage of the trial or at any subsequent stage prior to th
e judgment.
The code gives ample power to the courts to alter or amend a charge whether by t
he trial court or by the Appellate Court provided that the accused has not to fa
ce a charge for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in the
dark about that charge or in not giving a full opportunity of meeting it & putti
ng forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally preferred against him1
0. The court has a very wide power to alter the charge; however, the court is to
act judiciously and to exercise the discretion wisely. It should not alter the
charge to the prejudice of the accused person11.
Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction on one of several charges
Section 224 of CrPC states that when a charge containing more heads than one is
framed against the same person, and when a conviction has been had on one or mor
e of them, the complainant, or the officer conducting the prosecution, may, with
the consent, of the Court, withdraw the remaining charge or charges, or the Cou
rt of its own accord may stay the inquiry into, or trial of, such charge or char
ges and such withdrawal shall have the effect of an acquittal on such charge or
charges, unless the conviction be set aside, in which case the said Court (subje
ct to the order of the Court setting aside the conviction) may proceed with the
inquiry into, or trial of, the charge or charges so withdrawn. The section is ap
plicable where the accused in convicted of one of several distinct charges befor
e the other charges are tried. It is necessary that the several charges made mus
t be in respect of distinct offences and the section will not apply where the se
veral charges are made under Sections 220(3), 220(4), or Section 221.
Effects of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in charge
Under Section 215 & 464 of CrPC object is to prevent failure of justice where th
ere has been only technical breach of rules not going to the root of the case as
such. The two sections read together lay down that whatever the irregularity in
framing of a charge, it is not fatal unless there is prejudiced caused to the a
ccused12. The object of the section is to prevent failure of justice where there
is some breach of the rules in the formulation of the charge. However, the sect
ion also makes it clear that insignificant irregularities in stating the particu
lars of the offence will not affect the trial or its outcome. In order to decide
whether the error or omission has resulted in a failure of justice the court sh
ould have the regards to the manner in which the accused conducted his defence &
to the nature of the objection.
The object of the charge is to give an accused notice of the matter he is charge
d with. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caus
ed to him because of the charges, the accused cannot succeed by merely showing t
hat the charges framed were defective. Nor could a conviction recorded on charge
d under wrong provisions be reversed if the accused was informed of the details
of the offences committed and thus no prejudice was caused to him13. The mere om
ission to frame a charge or a mere defect in the charge is no ground for setting
aside a conviction. Procedural laws are designed to subserve the ends of justic
e & not to frustrate them by mere technicalities.
Conclusion
In a criminal trial the charge is the foundation of the accusation & every care
must be taken to see that it is not only properly framed but evidence is only ta
mpered with respect to matters put in the charge & not the other matters14.

In framing a charge during a criminal trial, instituted upon a police report, th

e court is required to confine its attention to documents referred to under Sect
ion 17315.
The judge needs to be only convinced that there is a prime facie case, where the
re is no necessity to adduce reasons for framing charges. However, the magistrat
e is required to write an order showing reasons if he decides to discharge the a
ccused16.
The sections dealing with charge do not mention who is to frame the charge. The
provisions dealing with different types of trials however provide that it is alw
ays for the court to frame the charge. The court may alter/ add to any charge at
any time before the judgment is pronounced.
But if a person has been charged, the court cannot drop it17. He has either to b
e convicted or acquitted18. All this has an important bearing on the administrat
ion of justice.
Footnotes
1 This procedure is followed in trials of warrant cases & trials before courts o
f session.
2 VC Shukla v. State through CBI 1980 Cri LJ 690, 732
3 Shiam Sunder v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Oudh 145,147
4 Sanatan Mondal v. State, 1988 Cri LJ 238 (Cal)
5 Aftab Ahmad Khan v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 436
6 Willie Slaney v. State of MP, AIR 1956 SC 116
7 Chunnoo v. State, AIR 1954 ALL 795
8 Ranchhod Lal v. State of MP, AIR 1965 SC 1248
9 See Supra Note 11
10 Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 3 SCC 166
11 Harihar Chakravorthy v. State of W.B., AIR 1954 SC 266
12 Kailash Gir v. V.K. Khare, Food Inspector, 1981 Cri LJ 1555, 1556 (MP)
13 SS Rout v. State of Orissa, 1991 Cri LJ 1595
14 Ramakrishna Redkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 Cri LJ 254 (Bom)
15 State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar, (1995) 4 SCC 181
16 Omvati v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 4 SCC 38
17 State of Maharashtra v. B.K. Subbarao, 1993 Cri LJ 368 (Del)
18 Prakash Chander v. State (Delhi), 1995 Cri LJ 368 (Del)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subjec
t matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Do you have a Question or Comment?

Click here to email the Author
Interested in the next Webinar on this Topic?
Click here to register your Interest
Contributor
Sugandha Nayak
Singh & Associates
Email Firm
More from this Firm
More from this Author
Authors
Sugandha Nayak
More Popular Related Articles on Criminal Law from India
Law Of Money-Laundering In India
Vaish Associates Advocates
An amount 1.945 billion Swiss Francs (about INR 9,295 Crore) has been alleged to
have been laundered or stacked by Indians in Swiss banks.
Process Of Trial Of Criminal Cases In India
Vaish Associates Advocates
India has a well-established statutory, administrative and judicial framework fo
r criminal trials. Indian Penal laws are primarily governed by 3 Acts.
Corporate Criminal Liability: Principles Of Attribution And Vicarious Liability
Clarified
Nishith Desai Associates
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court holds that the principle of alter ego c
an only be applied to impute the intent of the person who controls the affairs o
f the company to that of the company.
On A Sticky Wicket: A Point Of View On Understanding The Impact Of The Proposed
Prevention Of Sporting Fraud Bill, 2013
Deloitte
Timing is everything when it comes to sports. This couldn't be more true, as the
Government of India is set to discuss the Prevention of Sporting Fraud Bill, 20
13 ("the Bill") in the Indian Parliament, in a bid to curb issues such as match
fixing that have brought much embarrassment to the sporting community in India.
Corporate Criminal Liability: Revisiting Iridium
PSA Legal Counsellors
The complexity shrouding the issue of criminality of a corporation was settled b
y the Supreme Court ("SC") in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. case.
No Automatic Arrests, Due Process To Be Followed: SC
Nishith Desai Associates
Over the years, India Inc. has witnessed a rampant increase in white collar crim
es. Police in India has almost set a trend of effecting immediate arrest.
Anti-Corruption: If You Are Not Part Of The Solution; You Are The Problem
PSA Legal Counsellors
Fighting corruption in India has entered a new phase. In recent times, newspaper
s are filled with reports and analyses of alleged acts of bribery common in Indi
a.
Section 309 Quashed!
Singh & Associates
The Bharatiya Janata Party-led government has quashed section 309 of India's col
onial-era penal code which said a "suicide survivor could be sentenced to a year
in prison, a fine, or both".
In association with
Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Investment Immigration
More Advice Centers

Related Topics
Similar Topics
Criminal Law
Crime
Related Articles
Recently Viewed
Corporate Criminal Liability: Revisiting Iridium
PSA Legal Counsellors
Crime Never Dies
Singh & Associates
Section 309 Quashed!
Singh & Associates
Process Of Trial Of Criminal Cases In India
Vaish Associates Advocates
Intoxication
No Ground For Dilution Of Murder Case
Singh & Associates
Scope Of Inquiry By The Police At The Time Of Registration Of FIR
Singh & Associates
DNA Fingerprinting: Helping Hand In Solving Crime
Singh & Associates
Juvenile Justice Act Amendment "Need Of Hour"
Singh & Associates
Justice Verma Committee Recommends Changes In Crime Against Women And Right To P
rivacy
PSA Legal Counsellors
Delhi Gang Rape: Questions On Establishments
Aishwarya M Gahrana & Associates
Tools
Print
Font Size:Decrease Font Size by 10%Increase Font Size by 10%
Save Article
Translation
Powered by Translate
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
Free News Alert
Custom RSS Feed
Contact Us | Your Privacy | Feedback
Mondaq Ltd 1994 - 2015
All Rights Reserved